Well, I’m glad that you explained that, because I would not have guessed that to be a serious “problem” for you.
But I would have guessed that you believe in an objective reality; a reality distinct from whatever you might think of it. Is that right? If so, the whole thing is pretty easy to resolve by understanding consciousness and ontologies.
I had a thesis here long ago about “Consciousness: Remote Recognition”, but it got shifted around to who knows where now since the forums changed. The OP was something like this;
And an ontology is an inner map produced through remote recognition with which an entity guides itself through an outside reality. When trying to confuse the populous, people preach that the map itself is the “only reality” (conflating the map with the terrain), which of course makes it pointless and yields a lack of reverence for the actual outside world in favor of an imagined media production - the virtual reality magic show. The end effect is to reduce the ability to think and make muppets of men.
No, it is not actually a problem for me, beacuse you are right with your guess.
The problem is a philosophical one, but because of that fact we all are involved in that problem, whether we want to or not.
Yes, that is right, James. At least for the most part. For the most part I believe in an objective reality - like a scientist. But I am also sceptic. I partly believe like a scientist and partly like a philosopher; in other words: I believe like a sceptic thinker, a sceptician, who believes scientifically and philosophically in a sceptic way. To me scientists hae always to be sceptic because if they do not be sceptic, they will sooner or later be corrupt. To me philosophers do not have to be, but should be sceptic.
The people with English as their first language would have better done, if they had stayed more with their old language because foreign influences (here: Latin) hinder thinking in the first language.
This text suggests or advises that an electron has a consciousness or at least an awareness.
The answer?
No.
But nevertheless: Why are in that text often used words (e.g.: “respond”, “aware”, “distinguish”, “reacts”, " attempting", “recognize”, “attempt”, “reaction”)which suggest or advise consciousness or at least awareness of particles and of the whole universe by itself?
The thesis was demanding a distinction between direct physical response (awareness) and remote recognition (consciousness). Inanimate objects, such as that electron, have direct physical awareness in that they respond to their environment. But inanimate objects do not recognize anything at any distance away from themselves and respond only by simple, one-to-one contact, thus do not have cognitive awareness, involving memory references and recognition, nor what we normally refer to as “consciousness”.
Consciousness ≡ Remote Recognition.
Because in the past people have not distinguished between a simple response and remote recognition response, thus their languages do not reflect the distinction. The difference in those is very relevant in distinguishing conscious vs non-conscious and a living entity and non-living entity (although it is not the definitive distinction for “life”). Without making that distinction, philosophers can run around endlessly speculating about what is conscious and what isn’t as well as what is live and what isn’t.
The reason this helps to resolve the object/subject issue is because of what it takes for remote recognition to work. For remote recognition to function at all, an ontology must be formed within the entity. That ontology is a “map of relevant existence for the entity” with which is attempts to discern objective reality in a relevant way. And we define “True” as the condition of the ontology when it is a reasonably accurate representation of the objective reality.
The conscious creature’s mind functions entirely via his ontological map.
This is a diagram that I hadn’t posted because it isn’t really showing what I was after, but is still relevant to this discussion;
The left image is an ontological “truth” for literally any and everything we call a “body”. The outside circle, “Entropic Ambience” is referring to the objective world “out there”, outside of the body, in all of its chaos. The inside circle represents a bonding mechanism that works against entropy such as to retard entropy, yielding a suspension in time. And the light brown circle between them is the Anentropic Interface (or what in other posts, I have referred to as the “Entropic Shell”) that keeps the inside distinct from the outside.
The Anentropic Interface is possibly the most relevant issue in all thought. It is what separates the “good and bad” or the “positive and negative”. It distinguishes angels from devils, Ego and superego from Id, nutrient from toxin, rational from irrational, and “Us from Them”. It is the Media and Border Patrol between any entity and its surroundings and thus is used in every attempt to control or modify the entity through modifying the entities ability to filter what is to be considered good/positive or bad/negative. It is the source of all laws and thoughts other than the one law that forms the entire universe.
But that is merely “a body”.
The diagram to the right is “a body with a mind”. A mind is an ontological type of body, the functioning of a neurological system. It has the same circles of relevance except that the outer circle, the ambience, is the physical body that it hosts. The neuro-physiology of the body is the ambience of the mind. And the inner circle of the mind is formed by a similar anti-entropic bonding that retards entropy of thought such as to yield greater permanence, known as “memory”.
What all of this has to do with Objective vs Subjective is that first, such a distinction between a mere body and a body with a mind, is necessary for an understanding of what “subjective” actually means. The concept of “subjective” is itself a portion of the ontological map within the mind. “Subjective” is not itself an objective entity, but an ontological distinction or a declaration of a “reference frame”: “With respect to John, X is good and Y is bad”. Thus subjectivity is entirely an ontological construct that applies only within minded bodies. Subjectivity is not a part of the physical universe, but rather a part of an understanding, ontological map, pertaining to the physical universe.
When one asks whether he is in a dream, he is asking of the accuracy of his ontological construct. He is asking, “Is this image that I am seeing true?” Since every image he sees is merely an ontological map constructed by his mental mechanisms that is possibly flawed, it is a valid question. So he isn’t actually asking about objective reality as much as asking about “Truth”.
How do you know when an ontology is True? 1) Is it consistent throughout the ontology? 2) Is it comprehensive in every relevant detail? 3) Is it relevant to my subjective concerns?
And that requires detailed analysis. How do you know when the media is lying to you? - Detailed analysis of those “Three Angels of Truth”.
Many distinct ontologies can be all true and yet due to not making a distinction in the languages they use, people assume a common ontology referred to as “The Truth”. In reality what is positive or good for John might well be different than what is positive or good for Mary. But when they communicate, they don’t make that subjective reference distinction and thus conflate not only the subjective concerns of good, but also any objective concerns of good. Their language reveals their lack of understanding that everyone has his own ontology. And even though a common ontology for all can be developed ( such as Affectance Ontology), the struggles to dominate prevent a coherent and complete ontology from being known to the populous.
Once a True ontology is the common ontology, much like English being the common language, objective and subjective references and understandings will become so inherent that people wouldn’t even understand how they could have ever been confused.
So to sum it up;
Everyone has their own eschewed subjective/relative ontology and tend to use common words when communicating and thus intending to be saying one thing while being interpreted as saying something at least slightly different. They have to use their own remote recognition mechanism, their consciousness, in order to live. And they do not currently have a common True ontology such as to be able to have a common reference of Truth to represent objective reality (spoken of in scriptures).
The way to discern truth from fiction is to carefully examine for; 1) Inconsistencies 2) Lack of details 3) Irrelevance
And that relates to how one can know that the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics, although useful, are not actually True. Detailed analysis reveals inconsistency (and especially throughout the Mainstream Media).
Linguistically said: You use the distinction between the words “awareness” and “consciousness” in order to get a physical awareness and a cognitive awareness, thus consciousness. You use the linguistical distinction between the words “awareness” and “consciousness” because there is a distinction between living beings and lifeless things too. And your result is: animate and inanimate objects behave likewise.
And what is life, exactly?
Nonetheless the overcome of the subject/object dualism is probably not possible.
If you are talking about the Truth/Deception dichotomy as proposed by the Persians, overcoming it individually isn’t difficult, but to remove deception/magic throughout society would take some very serious expertize and time, but is doable. If the average IQ of the homosapian had been just a little bit higher, none of it would have been a problem to begin with. The past 10,000 years would have been extremely different. Technology would probably have been developed by someone like the ancient Sumerians.
Basically, you would be talking about banishing the Devil from humanity. It takes a few very special men for that. They would have to have a very strong desire for it and behave in a very precise manner. And that is why things have to go to hell before anything positive gets done, the desire for the positive is inspired by the negative against Life itself. Life only tolerates imbalance up to a point.
Oh, and; Life ≡ Self-directed actions toward self-maintenance; anentropic effort.
It is distinguished from non-life by being self-directed. And that is why every time authority is given to a government, it is taken away from the citizens. They lose the ability to direct their own maintenance. They get disarmed, blinded, and caged (“golden handcuffs”). The ultimate all-powerful world government ends up being the only actual life on the planet, quick to become insane (even further).
One or the human beings should solve the subject/object dualism, but one or they probably can not. One or they would have been able to overcome the subject/object dualism, if one or they had solved it before. That problem is not merely a philosophical one, but before it can be overcome in “social” or other ways it has to be solved in a philosophical way. Who of the philosophers is able to solve the subject/object dualism?
Here is the one, and there are the others, the world.
Currently that average IQ is declining! You know the reasons?
You mean this post, right? If yes, I can say that I understand your post quite well, I do not really disagree with any point. The problem is the subject/object dualism itself. I or we human beings don’t know whether that problem can be solved or not because each of us is part of that problem.
Then there is something that one of us isn’t understanding about what the other is saying.
I don’t believe this part; “I or we human beings don’t know whether that problem can be solved or not because each of us is part of that problem.”
Obviously I didn’t make it clear as to why I don’t. Logic resolves the “problem”.
Phlilosophemes or theories can be right or true without any solution of the subject/object problem beacuse we human beings merely decide and say this or that is true/right or false/wrong, but we probably do not know what is true/right or false/wrong. That decisions always change, but also repeat or recapitulate somehow, and only sometimes there is a moment of more wisdom. Maybe that this moment of more wisdom (of some philosophers or other thinkers - of course) can resolve the problem of the subject/object dualism, but it is possible too that this moment of more wisdom also indicates that the problem of the subject/object dualism can probably not be resolved.
Please don’t forget: We - the human beings - decide or say that this or that is true/right or false/wrong. And we believe in that - more or less. Ask some members of this forum, whether they really believe in logic or not. Most of them would say: “Yes, but …”, and with their “but” they actually say “No(, but …)” because they would rather believe in religious things, especially the so called “atheists”.
So there ist merely a small group of human beings who search for a solution for the problem of the subject/object dualism. And currently the average IQ of the human beings is declining. What does that mean? In any case: It also indicates that the most human beings do not want wisdom, but religion and other things which make them stupid. Or, in the orther case, they want wisdom, but are not wanted to want wisdom, but religion and other things which make them stupid.
But the greatest barrier is the human Geist itself. How can we really know that a subject “is” and that a object “is” without thinking that they are always different or even not existent?
Are you saying that time starts tickling exactly at the same time when an event starts to take place?
Or time is merely our metal construct that we assume to help ourselves while measuring the changes?
I am trying but it is not complete yet but has many loose ends.
Basic concept is something like that-
I see this universe made of infinitely small but unstable particles of time, which roam here and there, in all directions. Then, they slowly start forming some unstable and small congestions, which ultimately converts themselves into slightly bigger (yet very small) stable particles.
Now, these small stable particles use to float into the ocean of time and face resistence by that in moving within it. This resistence is what we define as time, thus it is not uniform but localized. Those small stable particles tend to grew bigger and bigger while tavelling in the ocean of time particles by accumulating similar particles and thus our physical matter is formed.
There is one more type of entities exist in the ocean of time, that is particles of consciousness. It interacts with some specific type of physical matter and newly formed amalgamated entity is life. This life may exist in different varities and that depends on the ratio of the consciousness and physical matter in the unified entity.
So, basically what we see around us in the form of matter and space is nothing but time in different forms, with some of its portions amalgamated with consciousness. That is how different life forms like plants, animals, humans and even deities come into existence in different densities of time ocean.
Your question whether I believe that there is any existence that has absolutely no affect can be a rhetorical question because you are referring to your theory, but nonethelesse: generally I believe that I “am” or the world “is” or both: I “am” and the world “is”. What really “is” is basically undecidable - scientifically and probably also philosophically. As I said:
It is possible that particles do not exist and that they are merely in the perception or cognition of the so called “human beings”.
According to the current mathematicians it is possible that the time run forward and backward, according to the current mainstream physicists it is not possible, but perhaps the current mainstream physicists are wrong because the universe is huge.
If we think and talk about the universe and the time we should keep in mind what that actually means, shouldn’t we?
No, I wasn’t referring to my theory. I was asking if there can be anything that YOU would say exists, if you knew that it had absolutely no affect. I am talking about the concepts of having affect and existence, not anyone’s theory.
And to say that “what is, is undecidable” or unknowable, seems a strange thing to claim. I happen to know otherwise, but realize that everything we “know” is actually just a naming of things. And you are saying that we can’t even name it. That just seems odd.
But my question is simply, “Would you ever say that a thing exists, if you knew that it had absolutely no affect?”
Well, that is more than just a little familiar. But a few concerns;
) First, just an issue of language, you can’t use both “particle” and “infinitely small” to refer to the same thing. “Particle” implies size. You can say that it is “almost infinitely small” as the Quantum Magi do. In their ontology, their “particles of space” are 10^-31 meters (almost infinitely small to us). Or if you mean that it can truly be infinitely small, then it is a “linear substance” or a “property”, not a particle.
) So you are saying that in your ontology, there are two basic elements; time and consciousness, both infinitely divisible?
) But I have to ask why you are calling it “time”. What about it makes it time rather than orange juice, pickles, beauty, or light?
) What is between the “particles of time”?
) You have this time-substance/particle congesting, which means that you have “time-density” that varies from place to place. What makes it move? Why does it move?
) And you seem to have two definitions for “time”; a fundamental element and the resistance of that element moving within an ocean of itself.
I said it can be, not it must be a rhetorical question. And b.t.w.: I have nothing against your theory.
Everything we “know” is actually just a naming of things, that is what I say too. But we are talking about the problem of the subject/object dualism or dichotomy, and we know not very much about the solution of that problem, but we name it. I am not saying that we “can’t even name it”. We should name it, we have to name it - that is what I am saying. If we say “what is, is undecidable”, we do not say “what is, is not nameable”. That’s not the same.
And I have never said that we can not name anything. Never. I love linguistics very much, so I would never say that we can or should not name anything.
I am arguing that no one can ever know anything with absolute certainty, and because of the subject/object dualism as a problem which probably can not be solved, we can even not know with absolute certainty whether the subject(s) and object(s) exist or not and what they mean. But if we do not name them, we have no chance to come closer to any solution of all scientifical and philosophical problems.
And b.t.w.: If we do not name them, we would be no human beings anymore.
Well, that is more than just a little familiar. But a few concerns;